Empire State Bldg. Assocs. v. Trump, 247 A.D.2d 214 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1998). · Go Syfert
Empire State Bldg. Assocs. v. Trump, 247 A.D.2d 214 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Cited for

No citing cases on record.

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Empire State Building Associates, Appellants-Respondents
v.
Donald Trump
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 3, 1998.
Published opinion
247 A.D.2d 214
1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 763
Andrias, Sullivan, Wallach, Williams.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered October 29, 1996, which granted defendants-respondents-appellants’ motions to dismiss the complaint insofar as addressed to plaintiffs’ causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, interference with contractual relations, and interference with prospective contractual relations, and denied the motions insofar as addressed to the causes of action for declaratory and injunctive relief, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The causes of action for declaratory and injunctive relief were properly sustained on the ground that the Master Lease is ambiguous as whether plaintiffs are entitled to act as “owner” for purposes of filing applications to the Buildings Department. The causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing were properly dismissed on the grounds that the former fails to adequately allege any breach of contract, and the latter merely duplicates the former (see, Canstar v Jones Constr. Co., 212 AD2d 452). The cause of action for interference with contract was properly dismissed due to the failure to allege any breach of contract (see, Goldstein Prods, v Fish, 198 AD2d 137, 138). The cause of action for interference with prospective contractual relations was properly dismissed for failure to allege wrongful means (see, NBT Bancorp v Fleet/Norstar Fin. Group, 87 NY2d 614, 624). In addition, the latter two causes of action are essentially claims for civil conspiracy, which is not recognized as a substantive tort in this State (see, Chemical Bank v Ettinger, 196 AD2d 711, 715; McGill v Parker, 179 AD2d 98, 105).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Andrias, JJ.